President Nixon's 1978 speech to the Oxford Union

order order I have one announcement to make series 8:15 p.m. the presidential debate will be all murmurs from the British political system is unresponsive to visit other people all the candidates the president seems Morez elections will speak and the party will be visited by mr. dictabird to see faviell ex librarian there is no further private business it's afternoon this is to be addressed by the Honorable Richard M Nixon the president first and afterwards he will be taking questions strictly for members only at the end of the session President Nixon is game speak five minutes or so just to summarize discussion I don't think there's anything very much more to say so I'd like you all to welcome mr. Nixon to address the society on this subject thank you very much mr. president sir roll over Stan I expressed my appreciation to all of you here in this room for your warm welcome and those outside has made me feel very much at home I was saying to your president just before coming into this room that it was 20 years ago that I spoke at Oxford exactly at this time I saw someone nodding but you could have been born it I believe it was in this room it at least it was a room about this size and as I thought back over those 20 years and the subject which I am supposed to address the day it occurred to me that it might be well to look quickly over those years as to how the world has changed in that 20 year period it has changed in many ways in your country and in mine it has changed in many ways in the world all parts of the world but particularly in that area that affects the possibility of whether you may grow up in this last generation of the funniest century in the world in which there can be both peace and freedom I think it is well for us to examine what has happened to the world in that respect twenty years ago the United States and what was called the free world at an enormous advantage over what was called the communist world militarily particularly in the nuclear area the United States had a strategic nuclear superiority that was unquestioned of about ten to one and in the European theater there was not as great a superiority but it was significant at least sufficient in the 20 years since then that gap has totally disappeared the Soviet Union is today substantially ahead of the United States in terms of nuclear missiles are vehicles for delivery and enormously ahead in terms of throwing of nuclear weapons the United States still has superiority in the fields of numbers of warheads and also in accuracy however the Soviet Union is rapidly closing those gaps because at this time despite what you may read this morning in the paper with regard to the Soviet Union limiting its military expenses in terms of military hardware the Soviet Union today is spending annually seventy five percent more per year than is the United States geographically in that 20 year period we find that in every area of the world the Communist powers have extended their domination in no area of the world do we see a nation which was then communist and which is now non-communist briefly Cuba in 1959 and then even in the period four years ago when I left office in that period Vietnam Cambodia Laos Afghanistan Ethiopia South Yemen several countries and now when we look at that record there is a tendency and those circles that are sophisticated in foreign policy to throw up their hands and say that not only have we been losing but that we are going to lose certainly unless the trend is changed I recall many years ago in 1953 shortly after I became vice president General Eisenhower as president was telling me something from his own experience we had some problems than in the world there was a tendency to be too much concerned he thought about the strengths of those who might be our potential adversaries and he said I learned as a general commanding the great forces in Europe that it is important to know the strengths of your adversary and your own strengths and weaknesses but too often commanders do not analyze the weaknesses of their potential adversaries let's look briefly at that side of the picture it is not often commented upon in the reports even that you may read economically the advantage of those who live in what I call the West is in let us for purposes of definition today in our discussion refer to the West as the industrial West and I include in that Western Europe including of course Great Britain the United States and Canada and also Japan the West including those countries as an advantage over the entire communist bloc the Soviet Union and the countries of Eastern Europe of almost 5 to 1 Western Europe without the United States and without Japan has an advantage over all of the Soviet bloc countries of over 2 to 1 the Soviet Union is having very difficult problems with its economy partly due to the fact that they are put in such a great amount into armaments and partly because of the inefficiency of their agriculture and partly because of the inefficiency of much of their technological development in manufacturing in other areas this will cause courses cause problems problems that are not too well-known of descent within their own country a people who want more consumer goods then in the geopolitical sense all of us are aware of the fact that the Soviet Union and the other great communist giant the People's Republic of China are at odds and have in my view probably irreconcilable differences in our time in other areas we find that Vietnam and Cambodia are virtually on the brink of war with all the repercussions that might flow from that there are stirrings of discontent independence in Eastern Europe that has occurred before there are more now you of course have read this morning of what is happening in Romania for president Ceausescu is taking a very independent line in foreign policy although anyone who was vidur's visit his country knows that he runs a very tight shot insofar as a communist economy is concerned but in Eastern Europe we see the truth of something that was said many years ago by an American Secretary of State never in the history of civilization has there been a system that has had more success and extending its domination over nations and less success in gaining the approval of the people of those nations that is the story in Poland that is a story in Hungary that is a story in Romania in the other countries for the most part in Eastern Europe I mentioned Africa a moment ago as far as Africa is concerned black Africa particularly it is not a fertile soil for communism the idea it is however an inviting target for aggression internal and external and for dictatorial government because of the lack of governmental activities of experience which enable them to govern in another way and so as we look at these various factors we then come to the key question and that question is why is there talk about the decline of the West why is there so much pessimism in the West sir Robert Thompson a distinguished analyst of world affairs my consulted a great deal during the difficult years I was trying to bring the bring the American involvement in Vietnam to an end recently made this comment that a nation's strength equals its resources plus manpower times will there's no question about the resources of the West we already know its advantages enormous there is no question also about our military capability we may be behind in certain areas but with the enormous advantage that we have insofar as economic power is concerned if a race is to be had if we cannot have control of arms we will win it and the Soviet knows it but there is a question a question that has been raised by many Saul's in Easton at Harvard other scholars in America and brettelmer than other countries in Europe is there the will the faith the belief I think I would analyze the problem of will and perhaps four maybe five categories first there are those who are the defeatist they throw up their hands they believe that the tide of the future rests on the other side that we're going to lose so we might as well relax and enjoy it to the extent that we can and then there are those who are the fearful they believe that while we might be able to avoid defeat that's a risk is too great the risk of a nuclear holocaust and so you'll come out with the formula better be red than dead and then there of course there is that group of people that I would categorize very respectfully as being naive that really it doesn't make that much difference communism isn't that bad and that is combined with a fourth group who simply have lost faith in your system eight hours in the values of the West the very profound scholar George Kennan will have read about and studied who developed the theory of containment immediately after World War two as recently written that speaking of the United States at least that America no longer has anything to say to the world we are too decadent to corrupt drugs pornography all the sins of course of which you were aware and that as far as we're concerned and as far as the West is concern and America in particular we should turn inward limit our activities abroad rather than attempting to teach others to do as we do that is one point of view those that I have named let me come to my own and then turn as soon as I can to your questions needless to say I do not share those views I am a realist a pragmatist I do know that we face great challenges particularly in the military field but I believe we have the power I believe we can develop the will I believe we should and I believe I believe it deeply and I shall always believe it till the day I die that with everything that is wrong in our society and in the free societies we advertise our weaknesses well in theirs they bury theirs I believe that what we stand for is worth saving I'm not saying that this young generation worth dying for I do not believe there will be a third world war I think it can be avoided but I will say to you what we stand for is worth living for that is what I would like to leave for this young generation of leaders as I look across this room I I know you were very young you didn't seem that young 20 years ago and yet I know there is great potential in this room I think of what you this institution has meant to America what is meant to Britain five of your officers have become British Prime Minister's I realize true that I'm in a very honoured position to be here but mr. Moylan dropped a little hint to me that this was simply the preliminary out before the main event when you elect your own president what you are meant to America what you have meant to America maybe some of you are not aware but included among the Rhodes Scholars who have made it in our country politically a farmer Speaker of the House of Representatives a former Secretary of State a farmer chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee a present Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States one of the best quarterbacks in the National Football and he is so Frannie he'll probably make it in politics too and finally a member of the most powerful group in all of America in our diffusion our balance of powers mr. Howard K Smith the distinguished commentator for ABC now I regret to say that I cannot report to you that any one of your colleagues from this institution ever made it as president of the United States that but I will confidently predict to you that before the end of this century one of them probably will may be one of you and so finally mr. president I come to the questions and in doing so I just recall 20 years ago the first question right out of the box came from up in the gallery and I was of course waiting for something profound about how our British American relations going to be in the next 15 years and so forth it was a rather interesting question he said mr. vice president why are you here for a loan I don't know what my answer was but let me tell you if I was here for a loan this time and this shows you how things have changed please give it to me in powers are not a dog I'd like to thank President Nixon very much to meet that speech as I said before he was very kindly agreed to take questions so it's just like put your hand out the way for me to call you and then we'll take them on a time line okay all right we'll start down the front row mr. president can I ask you a question about the fall of Southeast Asia - the Communist dr. Kissinger thought Kissinger said in 1975 when Cambodia and South Vietnam fell to the Communists that he did not think this would have occurred had Watergate not occurred do you agree with that I would not want to leave the impression that I remained in office that I could have avoided the fall of Vietnam because that obviously would lead to the conclusion that President Ford could have done something that would have avoided that let me say that at the Congress acceded to President Ford's request for additional funds for military assistance to the government of South Vietnam South Vietnam would not have fallen when the North Vietnamese started their offensive their final offensive in the early part of 1975 they had a three to one advantage in Tanks a two-to-one advantage in heavy artillery and an unbelievable advantage in terms of supplies now it was a sad and tragic story it's a deadly I was speaking yesterday with a very distinguished man Sir Alec human and I pointed out to him that we had somewhat of a parallel not in the actual events but in terms of what great nations can or can't do a great nation is certainly pretty able usually to fight a big war where everybody participates but it is terribly difficult for a great nation to fight a small war the British found that out in the Boer War we found that out in Vietnam my final point on Vietnam is this it did not need to be lost the responsibility for losing it is twofold one the Soviet Union in violation of certainly their commitments to us that they would not continue to instigate the north and supply it with the additional forces that they did and second the failure of the Congress of the United States to grant President Ford's request for arms so that least the South Vietnamese would be able to fight on their own and finally as far as the legacy is concerned I know those who say the South Vietnam wasn't worth keeping wasn't worth saving that you government was corrupt and it did have corruption that you government didn't allow enough freedom of the press and it didn't the Chu government didn't allow a free enough election and that it did not and yet I can only say this before to fell there were 17 newspapers in Saigon before he fell a birth or a third of the National Assembly were strong opponents there were elections now there are no elections there are no lose papers there is only one and there is no opposition in the Parliament as far as I'm concerned when you see the tragic boat people I think that's a pretty good indication that what Lenin said and it was he who authored this phrase so many years ago refugees are people who vote with their feet I don't see anybody wanting to get back in the Vietnam I see a lot that want to get out now our school members speak as loudly as possible and they ask their questions so they can be heard all over the hall tears take one hell president we were able to take one major decision of the last ten years and have it over again the purpose of making it differently in foreign affairs would you indicates the house which one that would be or are you satisfied that all your major decisions were correct ones well being a humble man I won't say in the field of the Foreign Affairs I can't say that any one of them was right totally I don't think anybody be able to judge for example that our China initiative was right until the end of the century I think it was I think it was probably my most important decision it was one that I developed before I became president it's one which dr. Kissinger enthusiastically endorsed and carried out brilliantly and yet depending upon what happens people may raise questions as to whether was the right thing to do I think perhaps and you have not implied this but I will imply it for some of the audience suit I think with justification would the idea might be when I came into office not having sent the American forces into Vietnam the first 16,000 was sent by President Kennedy the next 500,000 were sent by President Johnson we had a situation there where there were 300 dying a day it seemed to be a war of no end and there were many who said why didn't I just blame it on my Democratic predecessors pull all the Americans out and let it fall it was tempting politically but never tempted from the standpoint of the countries for as far as its future is concerned at South Vietnam fallen then as it is later falling I think the repercussions on the balance of Southeast Asia on Japan and another's could have been catastrophic and the other point is that if we could have done more earlier I know that looking at it from the Hopf standpoint rather than the super dove standpoint we have the super doves the super hawk both are wrong and I do in this area and in others but the super hawk say when we came in why didn't we go in and do then what we did later the thing that brought them to the conference table and entity the problem is that had we moved with great force at that time the American public would not have taken it the country was not ready for them second I was taking the long look if we had moved very decisively against Vietnam North Vietnam at that point I think the possibility of our opening to China and also establishing a new relation with the Soviet difficult is that has been might have been destroyed so in the long haul I don't mean that we did everything right at least at that time it seemed to be the right thing to do and it worked out certainly with regard to the Chinese and the Russians had we hope have one more hell in front in you yeah in view of your record throughout the 50s and the McCarthy period of very fierce anti-communism do you think that perhaps if you had been rather less efficient in domestic politics they taunt could have come a decade or more earlier than it did has everybody been able to hear the questions in the back yeah if you don't mind I mature mr. president very nice turn mr. president in essence the question was that it had I not been the fierce anti-communist I was in the fifty might not date on and probably the opening in China and other things come about well I think that rather exaggerate the influence that I may have had on President Eisenhower others in the 50s and second I would also suggest that in the 50s the situation was quite different in the 50s when the Soviet Union and the PRC were one block it was not the time certainly to have the kind of initiative to undertake a that we later took and second as far as the new communication with the Soviet was concerned the Dakota negotiation rather than confrontation with the Soviet and the very aggressive stage that it was them and looking at the Chinese with them in their early stages they were very aggressive as you may recall in Indonesia for example in Malaysia or in the early parts of the war in Vietnam in Bangkok and the rest it simply would not have been the right policy for the United States at that time to open a new relation with the Chinese let me say another thing from a political stage because I know a few of you are perhaps perhaps going into politics you're thinking about it anyway but my point is that from a political standpoint I do not believe that the man whom I defeated for the presidency for whom I had the great personal affection and political respect a farmer vice president Humphrey could have brought the country along on the China mission not because he was Pro Kahneman his team is none but because he did not have the confidence of the anti-communist the fact that I was known as an anti-communist and I still AM I am Pro Chinese and I am pro-russian I like to Russian people I'd like to Chinese people I like the Romanian people I just don't like communist please to see in our country and see in our country maybe they do I don't know in our country we have extremes just as you have in your country and I was able to communicate with the super Hawks they weren't as comfortable with me as they would have been with somebody else I wasn't their first choice make no mistake about that even in 1968 but on the other hand they thought I could win whereas maybe their first choice might not have won and I would take anything I would get of course so under the circumstances having gone in I was able to make the move with the Chinese makes the move with the Russians and they say well we don't like what he's doing we wish that he hadn't moved this way but we just can't believe that Ed US will be is going to be taken in by those functions and that's where it worked have whatever that mr. president said to misquote Webster should should something chance to poisoned near the head death and disease through all the land to spread bearing in mind the experience of the Soviet Union and certain parts of the African continent does the Honorable gentleman not agree that of all qualities essential for government honor is the most important oh I think the sense of the question and I couldn't quite hear at all and it's not your faul sir - the acoustics in the hall I'll contribute $10 to build a new winner no the question was that considering all the factors that we have mentioned with African and so forth is an honor the most important element I guess in government or in a man and what have you yeah I would I would say yes I was here at and as a matter of fact I would say to this particular audience or to any audience that politically a political man he will rise or fall based on that he has to gain the respect and confidence of his colleagues he's got to keep his word if he doesn't keep his word he may win in the short run he isn't going to win in the long run and I think one of the problems with regard to what we call the Watergate is because why you didn't say that I will imply that a question was raised that despite some of the things that I had done that they thought were worthwhile that deserves support they felt that on this matter that I had not handled it properly and they were right I screwed it up and I'm paid the price listening with regard to revelations and about last three presidents if you guard to the revelations about the last 3 presents United States particularly in sense of episodes of power the development could you still argue whether it's the man that corrupted the office or the office that corrupted the mound I think the question relates to whether what I have to is to keep my left ear closed and listen with the right address I think the question relates to the fact that and do of some of the things that have happened with the last three presidents insofar as the conduct of the office is it a question of the office corrupting the man or the man corrupting the office I would suggest that the office of the president is is a powerful way I would also suggest that there are no easy calls that a president makes if for example a president is confirmed and is confronted with bombings that are taking the lives of innocent people of radical groups that are threatening more activities of that sort he has to make very difficult decisions as to what can be done to save the lives of innocent people and that is a primary responsibility of presidents and presidents and in their ways of had to meet it for example when a president is confronted with a threat from abroad we all know that a president then has devolved upon him from the Constitution not only the power but the duty to deal with that threat in a way that it will not damage the country and of course harm the people of the country now the difficulty with that on the one side the responsibility of a President to deal with threats external threats and second the responsibility to deal with internal threats that threaten the lives of people the difficulty with that is that when the president uses power that then if the power is in excess that too is a threat to the Peace of at the freedom of the people Lincoln's use for example of habeas corpus during the War Between the States as you know he abolished it or put it aside that was extra constitutional but it was necessary to do it and then of course in the 60s with the riots and all the other things it was necessary at least President Kennedy and his attorney general felt that way President Johnson did and I felt that way it was necessary to at least have what we thought the most thorough investigation of these groups because we thought it was more important to apprehend those that were going to kill innocent people than it was to allow those people to be the subject of that kind of a kind of attack and then after they were killed to have to apprehend those who were guilty let me use one example which poses a very difficult problem for a president you all remember I'm sure in the Olympic Games in Munich when the Israeli athletes were all murdered by a group called El Fattah I think that's the proper the way it's pronounced phonetically is that way everyone they all fought a group we learned through the much maligned maligned FBI we learned had established a network in the United States that group was apprehended it was broken up in the United States through what was called wiretapping and break-in by the FBI now on the one side those who are civil libertarians and I understand how they feel would say we that nothing will justify or justify wiretapping being approved by the Attorney General and of course the Attorney General acts for the President and my question is this should L Fattah not have been broken up and it wouldn't have been broken out without that kind of surreptitious entry and should we have had that kind of an incident in some place in the United States or wasn't it worthwhile under those circumstances where we had a foreign control group of radicals who were threatening to kill Americans at a certain area shouldn't a president and his attorney general and his director of his FBI weren't they justified in approving the extra means that were necessary to break it up some say no as far as I'm concerned I say yes because those innocent people were my responsibility and I take that responsibility let's clear that mr. president in view of subsequent events do you regret your decision to invade Cambodia what I regret about my decision to invade Cambodia was that I didn't do it sooner let me explain briefly and I and I don't want to filibuster particularly be caught before a politically sophisticated group as you know what it is but be that as it may here was the situation Cambodia at in 1970 Cambodia was an area where there was a whole group of sanctuary so-called in which North Vietnamese and Viet Cong troops were stationed there were no Cambodians whatever their Xie Newcomb I knew I met him back in 53 when he was still playing the violin but in any event Chien who had told one of our representatives that as far as he was concerned he didn't care what we did in that part of Cambodia because no Cambodians were there and he'd like to get the North Vietnamese out of his country now what was happening is they were in that part of the country and then they would come across the border in the Vietnam and they were killing Americans and our South Vietnamese allies by the tens of thousands and then they go back over we couldn't even pursue that we could do anything also in that spring April they were sending great numbers of troops into Cambodia preparing for what is called the Tet Offensive of that year it was Italy shortly after town had we not struck them then we would have had enormous casualties so what will be to do let them have this privileged sanctuary or go in there now let me just add one other point when we talk about invading Cambodia may I ask in World War two when Eisenhower ordered the landing of Normandy was that invading France no the purpose of that was to destroy the German armies that were occupying France and he was right to do it we went into Cambodia we weren't invading Cambodia Hsieh nope didn't object to it we were going there for the purpose of blending an offensive that would have killed American men I do it again I wish I'd done it sooner in the word of an overseer but deal what's your response to the objections to it oh yeah what's your responses to the objections to detox that it recognizes the communist governments of the people's concerns and also that even when you get into negotiations with these governments they keep on breaking the various agreements such as the Soviet Union is doing with the Helsinki agreement as they did in Vietnam as you pointed out earlier let me have to serve you right I understand I know you're the question but is your position one that you have doubts about how sentía doubts about the time well you are you're asking me where I am I'm asking whether you have doubts what your answers to a genuine good the question I think in summary and fairness is this and due to the fact that the Soviet Union is violating what we would consider what many call the spirit of date on and the spirit of the Helsinki agreements through their violations of human rights through what they're doing for example in Africa through waiting war by proxy through Cubans who of course he didn't mention that but I would include that in it that in view of all the Soviet Union's conduct what then is my attitude about date on having been one that is supposed to have helped to initiate it which of course was the case if I could just take a little more than the time on this because this covers a periphery of issues and we have to understand what we're talking about first what is they talk they taught is not on conned the only way that they're the same as their French words I'm Don as you know anton means an alliance between nations with similar interests or shared interests date on is not an alliance date on simply means a process of negotiation between these nations with different interests now when we understand it that way when we say that doesn't mean that the United States and the Soviet Union have similar interests that we have similar values that we believe in the same thing as a matter of fact in my talks with Brezhnev and Kosygin and others we were very blunt I pointed out and they pointed out to me where we did differ and on those particular issues there was no compromise now what were we trying to do then by date on we were recognizing a fact of life they are there and we're here each of us has the power to blow each other up and in stand to blow the world up now what do we do communicate with them not know each other or do we find a way to communicate with them on issues where we are never going to agree so that those issues don't explode into war and then find a few areas where we can agree so that both sides will have a stake in keeping the peace and so what we have here with daytime and a communist on the one side communists on the other side totally disagreeing as to what the world should be like in the future now howdy taunt works getting-to-know-you what does it mean does it help it's it's absolute nonsense to think that because a couple of leaders know each other they're going to like each other the matter of fact when you get to know each other you're probably going to hate each other a little more but not necessarily getting to know you however reduces the possibility of miscalculation and that's worth it an example the best one I can think of from our administration in 1973 we had the second Soviet American summit in San Clemente after midnight in my home the little library upstairs fresh Neff woke up late sent a message in through me through Kissinger said I want to talk and so we talked he talked mainly for three hours and the whole talk was about the Mideast we hadn't covered that in all of our other's discussions at any length and he kept pounding the table and he said you've got to impose a settlement on the Israelis or there's going to be a blow-up we are going to have to do things and I says I'm not going to impose a settlement on the Israelis all the Arabs because an imposed settlement will not be and should not be accepted by either and then he went on to say well if you don't do it he said and any actions occur or struggle occurs we are going to have to act I said in the event that there is any intervention of a major power in the Mideast I said the United States will have to react strongly that's a summary of a three-hour conversation now tonight later on in 1973 came the yom kippur war the israelis started to lose I ordered the airlift and then the Israeli started to win and then Brezhnev sent a message saying we're going to send a division two divisions of Russian infantry in to Egypt and to Syria and we invite you to send two divisions and Israel I sent a message back which in effect said no way because of course I knew and you would all know we never want to get Russian and American divisions that close together because that they get that close together particularly in that battle situation they'll rub together and bang you're going to have a confrontation of some sort and probably an escalation to a major war the message came back I'm going to send them anyway unilaterally he was going to send them in I sent a message back he still was going to send them it and I sent another message it was the alert now this was not the top alert but it was high enough it was an alert of our military forces around the world that message got through now why didn't get through Brezhnev is a realist he does not want war he wants the world but it doesn't want war that of course is the great danger not defeat in war but two feet without war but anyway Brezhnev when he receives the message on the alert I am confident if he had not known me and guessed and in this case against properly that I might react strongly that I might I left at least the doubt in his mind the alert might not have worked he would have thought as the Chinese put it that it was an empty cannon and so thank God we didn't have to do it he didn't send in the divisions and then started the process the process in which the Israelis and the Arabs acting through Kissinger began the disengage we had the israelian disengagement on the one front and the Golan Heights disengagement with the Syrians on the other front and President Carter is capped it off along with Sadat and Bay gain and the splendid achievements at Camp David and incidentally there will be an Egyptian Israeli peace settlement it'll be rocky earth for a while but there will be because the option for war on both sides is unacceptable and that's when people make peace there be other troubles in the future but at least for that when we can be thankful now that's way the taunt worked there getting giin it's very important that Brezhnev no card so that he doesn't underestimate Carter Carter has made some moves the cancellation of the b1 the cancellation of the Minuteman 3 they putting the crews in the backburner slowing down the MX etc which may give Brezhnev may have given him a feeling that maybe Carter is weak now anybody who has come from our Carter did won the nomination against great odds then won the election is no pantywaist and so it is important I'm I do not know him well but I would say that Brezhnev and Carter meeting with each other means that when they come to these sticky areas which we're going to have it's very important that neither judge Theodore Carter must not misjudged brush neck he must not get the impression that Brezhnev could be pushed around because he can't be and by the same token of must not miss judge Carter so eat aunt works that way then just to sum it up briefly as far as Eitan is concerned it's important for the leaders of know each other second in the economic areas that have no military significance it's important to build those times because it gives the Russians a little stake in not in in peace and third in other areas it's very important for in this whole area of the time that we recognize that we can accomplish things if we have communication in private channels that all the public talking and the world wouldn't do and this allows me to comment and it's extended answer because I know this is on your minds too on the whole question of human rights as it relates to the Soviet Union now let's all understand one thing everybody is for human rights who lives in the Western world and I think a lot of people who live under the communist rule or for to the question is not whether but how I applauded fine statements on human rights I like to make them myself let me say what I am interested in is a result what do you accomplish let's take Jewish emigration my strong feelings about that I have friends who have strong feelings on it when I came into office you know how many Jews were let out of the Soviet Union in 1968 600 600 what do we do about it I didn't make any speeches about it although I felt very deeply about it many of my Jewish friends came to me and non-jewish friends because this is something that isn't just one religion this covers everybody it's the terrible things these people couldn't get out they said won't you say something I said no I said let me handle it my own way and Kissinger and I worked right together along these things we kept talking to the Russians about other things they wanted in the economic area and so forth and so on and they of course wanted to negotiate arms control and we kept talking about that but on the backburner was always this question of Jewish emigration we would raise it quietly but we didn't put them in the public spot by making a public statement to the effect that unless they agreed to do something with regard to their internal situation we weren't going to talk for example about how we might limit arms we weren't going to talk about methods to reduce the danger of war we weren't going to make those issues hostage in effect to the human rights issue now an argument could be made for doing it the other way but let's see how it worked as a result of all that now this kind of an approach by 1973 37,000 Jews got emigration visas from the Soviet rule and then there began to be more and more public condemnation of the Soviet on this your nominee got out last year 10,000 a great nation will not and can I give in the public pressure with regard to its what it considers its internal affairs so don't put them on that spot but on the other hand put them on a spot privately and so in essence what I am saying is this in this whole area of they taunt and communications among nations three nations in this area of human rights that if you want to make boats if you want to get a lot of good publicity yes do a lot of threatening and talking and listen that on the other thing if you want to accomplish results just remember this one thing where the Kremlin's concern I've been in the Kremlin the walls are very thick when you're inside the Kremlin it's plenty hard to be heard when you're outside you can't be heard at all and therefore I say the way to get action from them let them know that there is linkage but don't embarrass them publicly in that way you're going to get results that's just the lesson in diploma president president in 1974 were opposed in Greek newspapers as calling Archbishop Makarios the Castro of Mediterranean do you have any reflections on American policy in the Aegean in 1970s I think it's a quote from a Greek newspaper - calling makarios the Castro of the Mediterranean in 1974 well I I had met him at one point I don't recall the quote I would only say that that would have been awful rough I called him that but I would also say this I have been to both Greece and Turkey I have not been disciples I think it's a great tragedy that these two countries who depend upon each other so much who are the southern hinge of NATO are allowing this fight over Castro which I know has very very deep roots in both countries are allowing that to make themselves enemies and at the same time making it very difficult for them to continue to cooperate in the great NATO alliance I don't have an answer to it and as far as macario's or any other Cypriot leader is concerned if I said such a thing I certainly apologize for it one of the side ever that yes many Americans still hold you responsible were given a presidential pardon sir in order to lend you a sort of chapter in American history you're real merchandise viewed in some courts in America at least will prank horror now despite the fact we're all extremely pleased you've come and given us such a charming topper part of it you feel that you still have might have a puzzling contribution to make either American domestic politics our international affairs I think the question in essence is hidden and view of my of my having to leave office the way that I did and build them mistakes that I made on the political front which I agree that I made as I would to put it in the words of talleyrand I know that he isn't very popular in England but he said some clever things he said when people ask what was Watergate I said it was worse than a crime it was a blunder and a very bad blunder and badly handled and I understand that and in view of all that do I still think and am I so presumptuous to think as I have any contribution to make well I sometimes wonder about it let me me philosophize a bit with some of you here about life in general and I'm not filibustering because perhaps this is more useful and all this stuff about missiles and throw weight and arrest anybody who gets to the high office of the presidency tries to do the best he can my years there were not easy when I've already pointed out that all wars are difficult for a president war particularly is difficult for me it's hard for you to believe this I suppose because I'm I'm supposed to be a hardline war monger bomber etc etc etc but it must tear every president apart to have to write to those next to kin it did me I happen to be a Quaker I don't hold that out I don't wear it my sleeve I don't believe in that on the other hand well I think that some of my good Quaker friends are a bit naive at times because in the real world we sometimes have to fight for what we believe yes that's the ideal that I believe in and all my public life is all if I wanted to leave anything far more than maybe a better economic system or far more than a better political system it would be a world in which this generation does not go through what every other generation in this century has gone through a war I've always talked about the generation of peace I hope it's a century of peace and it was difficult for me for another reason as I alluded earlier Wars for a great power which are big Wars are tough but when you have the country behind you that's leadership but for wars against a little power when a country is divided it's difficult you hear these people outside and I it's not pleasant I mean I I'm used to it I've had to develop a little stronger voice as a result of understood but I never forget you know there many moments that stick in your mind this is sort of inconsequential I went down to Williamsburg Colonial Williamsburg I think it was a 1971 to make a speech to a world law conference on world peace net and a very very active girl I would guess she was 16 17 sort of reminded me of my daughter when she was that age my older daughter whose blue-eyed and blond this girl is blue-eyed and and as I was walking in she she came right up against me walking up to me broke through the secret service line and just spit right in my face she said you murdered well I borrowed a handkerchief from The Secret Service guy wiped it off and went in about as hard as speech has ever made because you don't you don't want anybody I don't mind you know adults saying I don't agree with you I don't mind getting a few rocks thrown at me I've had that too I don't mind being cartoon I may not like it but I got a reason to fight back but to have young people like this to think that somebody who has been president is one who has not even tried to make a contribution to their lives then you kind of think you're a failure but let me say this I did fail in the political area I failed and handling a little thing and by failing to handle it well that colors everything that you did but on the other hand I feel that when it comes to the great goal of building a better world that if we had not made the China initiative if we had not made the moves that we had to restore the Soviet Union even though it's pretty hairy and it's going to be some tough negotiation before it works out I think the chances for a world of peace would be far less than they are and for that I have no apology for those achievements now what I'm going to do the rest of my life is this it's very comforting you know I have enough to get out with my wife and sit and contemplate my navel in the Pacific walk my dog on the beach I don't hunt I don't fish but I you know I could play a little golf in the rest but you know if I did that went to the parties each night to which I could go ate the good food turn my mind off as I watched television I would be dead mentally in a year and physically in two and so as long as I have any breath in me I'm going to talk about the great issues affecting the future of the world in my own country if I think I've got something that's going to help I'll say it if it's going to hurt I'm going to keep my mouth shut but somebody but I feel at this time I feel at this time and I know I'm sounding melodramatic and I intend to but I feel at this time the West is a sleeping giant it has all the power unbelievable power that the world has ever known economically and that means militarily it can have all that and it's a sleeping giant because there are so many in this country in our country and in other countries who perhaps have given up they've lost faith in what we're doing they fear too much they adversary they they think perhaps were on the losing side I think we have to wake up I think we have to of course recognize we've got our faults but we have a system in which we can change your spots and under those circumstances I feel that I as one voice I won't be listened to as much as when I was in office and not as much because of some of the failures that I had but as long as I've got any breath in me before this kind of audience or any kind of audience I'm going to speak up very strongly for what I think will bring peace but also very strongly for what I think will continue to what will contribute to freedom in the world because the two must go together peace with freedom that's what I have fought for all my life and I'm going to continue to as long as I live president sir can you tell me precisely what role you think that you are going to adopt say in the future in both the political field at home and abroad what role will I play in the future in the political field at home and abroad well politically my political life is over and many applauded often as you know under our Constitution no one can be elected to the office of President more than twice I checked with mr. Marlon he says I'm too old to get an Oxford so I can't run for president of the Union and I hear when I hear what a spicy kind of election you have even though I've had some tough elections I don't want to try that but so politically in that sense I plan to play no role I in the party as a candidate for a candidate anything however while I retired from politics I haven't retired from life that means public life and so the kind of a role I will play will be in the public public arena I intend to speak on occasion when the forum is a proper one I will do some writing I have another book that I'm working on it said I never agree to write a book it takes so much time but but I agree do a second one at any event it's a second book on the future having covered the past I worked on that for three and a half years what's going to happen the ended by the end of this century the challenge to the West but not just consulting our fears looking for how we can build a better world and then in addition to speaking and to writing I will from time to time when individuals can find their way to San Clemente on a private basis I will talk to them and give them advice free advice and there'll be worth just what it costs take one night mr. president in this crew that you cherish general bold as your vice president because you knew you would be County Department after you resign the question is a is it true that I told that I chose a Gerald Ford to be vice president because I he I knew he would guarantee a pardon after I resigned well let me say first it if I had known it if I had thought for one moment the Gerald Ford would accept the vice presidency on that condition I certainly wouldn't have picked him because he wouldn't be the proper president there was no discussion of it there was no commitment of it and he is not that kind of a man in Needham on the second point is that as far as he is concerned I chose him because I had known him for so many years I know that he shared my views on both domestic and foreign policy issues not all of them but that saw that there would be continuity I thought he would do an effective job I think he did I'm proud that I did choose him and I think he should be proud of his service for the country this one huh the new ins of you with David Frost you refer to that if we hit Creek motivational things do you stand by that description the question is that in my interview with David Frost I referred to that pipsqueak Watergate thing I think perhaps your your recollection is a little different I referred to one of the participants in in one of the series of questions as a pipsqueak pipsqueak is a term that's used for an individual not for an event and and and the individual I was referring to and and my memory isn't photographic but after all after all of I can I can of course remember any answer I gave to a Cambridge man mr. frost went to Cambridge I understand but any event I recall that the discussion was about Daniel Ellsberg and you probably remember that's where you read that Daniel Ellsberg you may remember was the one who let's see the word is pinched isn't it he pinched the Pentagon Papers and then put them out and there was a great hue and cry about it it was it was an illegal act and it caused great problems with our foreign policy it exposed some of our agents abroad unfortunately it we had a number of complaints from foreign embassies because they felt that some of the things they give spoken in confidence to to our own government people might be divulged let me point out briefly the Pentagon Papers again shows you sometimes you have to do things that are are not in your political interest the Pentagon Papers were in effect the critique of the Johnson Kennedy handling of the war in Vietnam had nothing to do with our administration the reason that we had to oppose the New York Times and others who having received the papers as they did from Ellsberg or his colleagues had to oppose their printing it and then the Supreme Court overruled us was that if top-secret documents could with impunity be taken away by a government servant or a farmer government servants and printed in the newspapers it would mean that you could not have confidential conversations with your top people on foreign policy or any other kind of matters nobody is going to confide you he's going to be talking for the record rather than for your the benefit of what the policy should be it would also mean that in wartime and this was in wartime that it would cause potentially enormous difficulties with your allies with your friends and give comfort to the enemy which could well obtain now mr. Ellsberg was the one who had of course taking the papers he puts them out he was on prowl and then on a technicality he was he was let go and so that was that I said that when he asked me about the situation I believe in discussing mr. Ellsberg and I think my recollection is correct I said I think he's a pipsqueak I still think he is have one question and a half remember this our evidence our next is another I think American voter said with Britain lost an empire alas the feeling had lost an empire not yet found a world rare now do you see the future of vision as being that of a rather tedious rather boring backward design duty that the future possibly offers a real tantalizing recently and cross country it's obvious he's a candidate for president well I am sure that all of you would expect me to speak well of Britain's future in the wrote in the world and I will but I'm going to speak quite realistically about it because I I know that if I just gave you the usual a ver you wouldn't believe it anyway you may not believe me anyway but nevertheless this is the way I see Britain's going through some tough times however I should point out that I just saw the CPI figures it cost of living it figures from the United States for last month and now Britain's inflation is lower than ours that's not that ours is bad I was rather surprised in doing my briefing before this meeting to find out that you're the increase in your productivity was slightly less slightly more than ours their projected increase for the year 1979 all you connivance can check this ours is going to be about 2.3 yours is going to be about 2.7 that's surprising I didn't think that that was going to happen I also find that in looking at the figures that as far as unemployment is concerned yours is about equal to us so much for that these are numbers and people do not eat numbers they can't spend them and all that sort of thing I know that far more important is something also you can't eat but it's something you can't live without and that is a faith spirit that's what you believe and when some people come back for Britain from Britain and say the British have had it I mean the labor unions are out of control they're asking for too much and even though the Prime Minister is as a wage policy which is very fair and a great majority by plural of labor union members favor holding the lid at 7% of whatever it is that some of the leaders are irresponsible and they're going to bust it and some of the businessmen are irresponsible because they don't want to lose it any more any any longer so they're going along and you just wonder if you're on that treadmill and that the economy is going to continue to go bad and your that Britain and this is the major problem Britain faces is going to continue to be in a position where its goods cannot compete in the world can't compete with the French let alone of course the Germans the Japanese a lot have troubles competing with them and with the Americans that's the economic picture everybody wishes Britain the best economically and we we hope your your inflation policy does prove to be relatively successful we do hope to that your productivity does increase we do hope that a new sense of responsibility does come in labor and in management but most important is something else that young Britons remember that this is a great country it was and it is and young Britons have got to remember that Britain has been great when things have been a lot tougher than they are now in this century you

Channel: Richard Nixon Foundation

Views: 107,859

Rating: 4.8926406 out of 5

Keywords: Richard Nixon, Richard Nixon (US President), Oxford Union (Organization), foreign policy, Russia (Country), Soviet Union (Country), China (Country), Vietnam (Country)

Id: 1gl84ilI8Do

Length: 80min 54sec (4854 seconds)

Published: Thu Aug 22 2013